MCP-TY

by qinsehm1128

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: analyze_file examines structure, get_completions provides suggestions, safe_rename handles renaming, etc. The descriptions make it easy to differentiate between analysis, navigation, editing, and project management functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_noun_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_file, get_completions, safe_rename). The naming is uniform throughout, using snake_case exclusively with clear action-oriented verbs like get, find, apply, and list.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive Python code analysis server. It covers diagnostics, navigation, refactoring, and project setup, though it might benefit from slight consolidation in areas like read_code and read_context.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for Python code analysis and editing: it includes project initialization (start_project), file reading (read_code), diagnostics (get_diagnostics), navigation (get_definition, find_usages), refactoring (safe_rename, apply_code_action), and cleanup (stop_project). No obvious gaps exist for its intended domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it mentions 'context', it fails to explain that this refers to line count, doesn't describe return format despite output schema existing, and omits error handling (e.g., invalid line numbers).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 9-word sentence is excessively terse given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations. Under-specification masquerading as conciseness; fails to front-load critical distinctions from siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. Missing sibling differentiation, parameter details, and behavioral expectations despite having an output schema that could have been referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It mentions 'context' conceptually but does not explain that the `context` parameter specifies the number of surrounding lines, or that it defaults to 10. `file_path` and `line` are implied but not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action (read code) and scope (around a specific line), but fails to differentiate from sibling tool `read_code`, leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus the general file reader.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `read_code` or `get_definition`, and mentions no prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure but only mentions 'release resources'. It lacks critical details: whether shutdown is graceful or forced, whether state/data is persisted, cleanup scopes, or the return value structure (despite having an output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (single fragmented sentence), which would be acceptable if accurate, but contains the typo 'ty' that undermines clarity. Every word should earn its place; here 'ty' wastes the agent's interpretive effort.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and an existing output schema, the burden is low, but the description fails to adequately explain what 'ty' refers to or the nature of the stopping operation. For a lifecycle operation (see sibling start_project), the ambiguity is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per rubric baseline for 0 params is 4. No parameters require semantic elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description contains a critical typo ('Stop ty' instead of likely 'Stop the project'), making the actual target ambiguous. While 'release resources' adds some context, the core object of the action is unclear, forcing the user to infer from the tool name and sibling 'start_project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites for use. The sibling 'start_project' exists but is not referenced to clarify the workflow relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'preview' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify what the output contains (e.g., diff format, edit ranges, full file content) or error conditions when invalid coordinates are supplied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the tool is underspecified for its complexity. With zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the brevity represents under-documentation rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four required parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the complete absence of parameter semantics and workflow context leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description completely omits any discussion of the four parameters. It does not explain that 'action_index' references a previous code action result, nor clarify coordinate systems (0-indexed vs 1-indexed) for line/column.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core function using specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('changes'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'apply_code_action' through the 'preview' semantics. However, it assumes familiarity with 'code action' terminology without defining it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the prerequisite workflow (e.g., that 'action_index' must likely be obtained from 'get_code_actions' first). The user must infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for safety disclosure but fails to indicate whether this is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. It mentions the output ('structure and diagnostics') but this is redundant with the output schema's presumed existence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence with no redundancy, though arguably too terse given the need to compensate for zero annotation coverage and poor schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete given the high sibling ambiguity and 0% schema coverage. It fails to clarify the analysis scope or differentiate from overlapping tools like get_code_actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description implies file_path refers to a 'Python file' but provides no details on path format (absolute vs relative), validation requirements, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('analyze') and target ('Python file'), and specifies distinct outputs ('structure and diagnostics') that distinguish it from siblings like get_diagnostics (likely diagnostics-only) and list_file_symbols (structure-only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diagnostics or read_code, nor does it mention prerequisites such as file existence or project context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'across the project' establishes scope, description omits critical behavioral details: matching logic (substring vs. exact vs. fuzzy), case sensitivity, and result ranking. Output schema exists but search semantics remain undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with action front-loaded. No redundant words. However, extreme brevity contributes to informational gaps given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a code navigation tool with 0% parameter schema coverage and numerous siblings. Missing: search syntax rules, relationship to other navigation tools, and performance expectations (e.g., large project implications).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (query parameter undocumented). Description provides context that query searches symbols, but fails to describe expected format (identifier rules, wildcards, case sensitivity) or give examples, leaving the parameter semantics largely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb 'Search' with concrete resource examples (classes, functions, variables) and explicit scope 'across the project'. However, lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like list_file_symbols or get_definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_file_symbols (file-specific) or get_definition (precise lookup). No mention of prerequisites or search prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description omits what constitutes a 'symbol' (classes, functions, variables), the output format, and whether the operation is expensive or cached. It mentions an output schema exists but adds no context about what it contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at 7 words. While appropriately front-loaded, it's arguably too terse given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. However, no words are wasted, and the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimally viable for a single-parameter tool with an output schema. The description covers the basic operation but leaves significant gaps regarding symbol types, output structure, and sibling differentiation that would help an agent invoke it correctly versus alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'in a file' which implies the file_path parameter, but provides no semantic details: whether paths should be absolute or relative, supported languages/file types, or error behavior when files don't exist. Insufficient compensation for zero schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb (List), resource (symbols), and scope (defined in a file). However, it fails to differentiate from sibling symbol-related tools like 'search_symbol', 'get_definition', or 'find_usages', which all interact with code symbols in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'search_symbol' (cross-file search) and 'get_definition' (specific symbol lookup), the description should clarify that this enumerates all symbols within a single specified file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that this operation likely modifies the filesystem, whether it requires the file to be saved first, or what happens if the action_index is invalid. 'Apply' implies mutation but doesn't confirm safety or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently structured with zero redundant words. However, given the complete absence of schema descriptions, this extreme brevity is inadequate rather than optimal—it sacrifices necessary parameter documentation for terseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and likely complex IDE-side effects. While an output schema exists (reducing the description's burden for return values), the description is insufficient for parameter comprehension and operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (titles only, no descriptions). While the description mentions 'by index' (relating to action_index), it provides no semantic context for the other three required parameters (file_path, line, column) or their relationship to the code action resolution context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('code action') and clearly indicates the mechanism ('by index'). The parenthetical reference to 'get_code_actions' effectively distinguishes this from its sibling tool, clarifying this is the execution step while get_code_actions is the retrieval step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(from get_code_actions)' implies a workflow dependency, suggesting this tool consumes indices from that sibling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., 'Call get_code_actions first') or when to use alternatives like get_edit_preview instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. 'Go to' implies navigation but MCP tools return data; description does not clarify what gets returned (location? source?) or behavior when symbol is not found or position is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently front-loaded with the action. The '1-based' parenthetical is high-value information that earns its place. Slightly cryptic for novices, but appropriately sized for an IDE tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 simple parameters and an existing output schema, the core operation is identifiable, but the 0% input schema coverage and lack of behavioral disclosure (error handling, file path format) leave notable gaps for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description compensation. It adds crucial semantics that line/column are '1-based' (avoiding off-by-one errors), but fails to document file_path expectations (absolute path? URI? extension required?). Minimal compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb phrase 'Go to definition' identifies the LSP operation, and 'at position' scopes it to coordinate-based lookup. However, it does not distinguish from sibling get_type_info (which also uses position) or clarify when to use this versus search_symbol.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the coordinate system constraint '(1-based)'. No guidance on when to use this over find_usages or search_symbol, no mention of file_path format requirements (absolute vs relative), and no error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the 1-based indexing behavior for coordinates. However, it omits whether results include the definition site, performance characteristics, or error behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundancy. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, it is arguably too terse and front-loads insufficient context for safe invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Having an output schema reduces the burden on description to explain return values. The coordinate system is specified (1-based), but with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should have explicitly mapped the three required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions on file_path, line, or column. The description mentions 'position' which implicitly maps to line/column, but fails to explicitly document the 'file_path' parameter or clarify that line/column are 1-based integers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Find' and resource 'references to symbol' distinguishes from siblings like 'get_definition' (which gets the definition) and 'search_symbol' (which searches by name). The '1-based' qualifier adds specific technical scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_definition' or 'search_symbol'. No prerequisites or constraints mentioned (e.g., project must be started first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the critical '1-based' indexing behavioral trait for the position parameters, but omits read-only nature, error handling on invalid positions, and whether it works for all symbol types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately front-loaded and efficient. However, extreme brevity comes at the cost of usage context and parameter documentation; one additional sentence would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, omitting return value description is acceptable. However, given 0% schema coverage and numerous sibling tools, the description should provide more context about parameters and usage scenarios to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). Description mentions 'position (1-based)' which adds semantic value for line/column parameters but fails to describe 'file_path' or coordinate format expectations, leaving significant gaps uncovered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('type information'), and target ('symbol at position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_definition' (location vs type) and 'find_usages' (references vs type), though could more explicitly contrast with 'analyze_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to prefer this over 'get_definition' or 'analyze_file', or when type information might be unavailable. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., project must be started).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. States initialization occurs but fails to describe side effects (what files/state are created), idempotency (safe to call twice?), or teardown implications (relation to stop_project). With output schema existing, description omits what successful initialization returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two sentences) with critical constraint ('Must be called first') front-loaded appropriately. No redundant phrases. Minor deduction because 'ty' appears to be either a typo or unexplained jargon, slightly reducing information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate minimum for a session initialization tool with existing output schema (return values need not be described). However, given zero parameter documentation and missing behavioral details (what 'ty' represents, initialization side effects), the description leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use this correctly without trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (project_path lacks description), and description fails to compensate. While 'project_path' is somewhat self-documenting by name, the description does not specify if this should be a directory path, absolute vs. relative, or what project structure is expected. Parameter documentation gap remains unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (Initialize) and resource (Python project), but the reference to 'ty' is unexplained and ambiguous—potentially a typo for 'the' or an obscure product name. Distinguishes from analysis-oriented siblings by identifying itself as project setup, but the cryptic 'ty' damages clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit sequencing guidance with 'Must be called first,' which is critical prerequisite information for an agent. However, lacks guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if project is already initialized) or alternatives to restarting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds critical '1-based' indexing note for line/column parameters. However, fails to indicate this is read-only (safe to call), whether it requires an active project (implied by siblings), or the nature of the returned action objects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no unnecessary words. However, brevity comes at cost of missing necessary behavioral and usage context, suggesting it is under-sized for the tool's complexity rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (reducing description burden for return values), the description inadequately covers the 0% schema-described parameters and fails to establish the critical sibling workflow (get_code_actions → apply_code_action). Lacks completeness expected for a 3-parameter LSP-like tool with no safety annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description implies line/column via 'position' and adds the '1-based' constraint, but completely omits file_path semantics (e.g., absolute vs relative path requirements). Provides partial compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('quick fixes and refactorings'), with scope ('at position'). Distinguishes from get_diagnostics (which gets problems, not fixes) by nature of the return value, but does not explicitly clarify the workflow relationship with sibling apply_code_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, or that it should typically be invoked after get_diagnostics when fixes are available. Missing explicit note that apply_code_action must be called separately to execute any returned actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies read-only behavior, the description fails to mention project context requirements (critical given 'start_project'/'stop_project' siblings), whether the file must be saved, or if this triggers a compilation/check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. No redundant words; 'type errors and warnings' efficiently specifies the diagnostic scope. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a single-parameter read operation with an output schema present (so return values need not be described). However, lacks critical contextual information about project lifecycle dependencies given the sibling tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no property descriptions. The description mentions 'for a file' which loosely maps to the 'file_path' parameter, providing minimal semantic context, but does not specify path format requirements (absolute vs relative), file existence requirements, or supported file types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get') and specific artifacts ('type errors and warnings') for a defined resource ('a file'). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'analyze_file' or 'get_type_info' that may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to prefer this over 'analyze_file', 'get_code_actions', or 'get_type_info'. No mention of prerequisites like requiring 'start_project' to be called first given the presence of project lifecycle siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the dry-run behavior (requiring apply=True to execute), but fails to explain what 'safe' implies (atomicity, reversibility, conflict detection) or what the output contains when previewing vs applying.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences and zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the action first. However, given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage), this brevity crosses into under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It documents only one optional parameter (apply) while leaving four required parameters (file_path, line, column, new_name) undocumented, creating major operational gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While it clarifies the 'apply' parameter's purpose (execution toggle), it completely omits semantic context for the other four parameters (file_path, line, column, new_name), leaving critical required inputs undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Rename') and clear resource scope ('symbol across project'), accurately conveying the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'apply_code_action' or 'get_edit_preview' that might also perform refactoring operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides critical guidance that 'apply=True' is required to execute, revealing a dry-run vs execution pattern. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'apply_code_action' or prerequisites such as ensuring the file exists in the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully specifies the 1-based indexing system (critical for correct invocation), but omits other behavioral traits like return format, caching behavior, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with zero wasted words. However, given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, this brevity becomes a limitation rather than a virtue, as critical context is omitted for the sake of terseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides the minimum viable context for correct invocation (the 1-based coordinate specification), which prevents off-by-one errors. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not compensate adequately for zero schema annotation coverage across three required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially does so by clarifying that line/column form a 'position' and specifying 1-based indexing, but fails to describe file_path semantics or provide detailed constraints for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (Get code completion suggestions) and scope (at position). The inclusion of '1-based' distinguishes coordinate expectations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_code_actions or get_definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code_actions or get_type_info, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the file needing to exist in the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds critical behavioral detail '1-based' indexing for line ranges (essential for correctness), but omits error handling (missing files, invalid ranges), output format, and auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 9 words. Main action front-loaded, modifiers follow. Both 'optionally' and '1-based' are essential information; zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema (covering return values) and simple functionality. Given 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the 1-based indexing detail is the minimal necessary addition. Adequate but could include file existence or range validation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (titles only). Description compensates partially by explaining 'line range' semantics and the '1-based' indexing for start_line/end_line, but does not describe file_path constraints or interaction between range parameters (e.g., can provide only start_line?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Read' and resource 'file content', with specific scope detail about line ranges. Distinguishes from write-oriented siblings (apply_code_action, safe_rename) implicitly via 'Read', though does not explicitly differentiate from read_context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like read_context or analyze_file. Only mentions that line ranges are optional, which implies usage but does not constitute explicit when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qinsehm1128/mcp-ty/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qinsehm1128/mcp-ty)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qinsehm1128/mcp-ty/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qinsehm1128/mcp-ty)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/qinsehm1128/mcp-ty'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server